Alternative Models of Reality

I have a simple question. If you do discover a physics ultimate theory of everything would you withhold it, i.e. not publish, to keep humanity out of trouble? Granted it may solve many of today's problems but are humanities' problems really due to under-utilization science or are they due to billions of people being subject to the whims of tyrannical rulers and tyrannical governments? Those rulers and governments will certainly misuse your TOE?

k.k.

"would you withhold it, i.e. not publish, to keep humanity out of trouble?

Sure. Nobody would recognise it anyway, ...but just in case.

Next review is planned for 2020.

PJ

Konst K,

No. The world has changed, the information age allows ideas to be exchanged in seconds it does not rely upon chance findings of a paper languishing in a pay to view journal in an inaccessible academic library. I have been sharing memes on this site for a number of years.

The world is changing. I think that is what this years essay competition

"How Should Humanity Steer the Future?" is about. Are you entering?

I don't know if I'm entering but the point of the question is the tyrants and tyrannical governments have the capabilities to use science against people. If the NSA can spy on everyone on the planet why should we think they or some group like them wouldn't misuse a TOE to do worse?

Hi, I have created an alternate model of reality.

There are interesting coincidences that make me believe my model works for our reality. Let me share this one and see if it makes sense to folks.

String Theory and subquantum scale atoms

(Human scale mass 57.768 kg)/(neutron mass 1.675 x 10-27 kg) = 3.449 x 1028

(Human scale mass 57.768 kg)(3.449 x 1028) = (Solar System mass 1.992 x 1030 kg)

Human consciousness resides midway in scale between quantum & cosmic scale masses.

Diameter of 1.992 x 1030 kg concentrated in a sphere at atomic densities equals ~ 7.6 x 108 m

Neutron diameter ~ 2.0 x 10-15 m

ﾂ･L = Length scaling factor between the quantum and cosmic scales = 7.6 x 108 m/2.0 x 10-15 m

ﾂ･L = 3.8 x 1023

In string theory particles are perceived as highly localized vibration of Planck length strings.

lp = (ﾄｧGc-3)1/2 = [(1.054 5717 x 10-34 Js)(6.6742 x 10-11 Nm2/kg2)(299 792 458 m/s)-3]1/2

lp = 1.62 x 10-35 m

From the Bohr model of the Hydrogen atom and in particular quantized angular momentum:

mvnrn = nﾄｧ

Combined with the de Broglie relation: ﾎｻ = h/p

The relation has long been known: 2ﾏ\rn = nh/pn = nﾎｻ

The smallest atomic orbital circumferences are the ground state Helium shells (1s2 orbital) of the heaviest atoms. The diameter of the helium shell for Radon (z = 86) ~ 0.02 ﾃ.... This shell has an average circumference = (2ﾏ\)(1 x 10-12 m) = 6.28 x 10-12 m, which is also the smallest ground state wavelength of an atomic orbital in the human scale.

Length scaling factor: ﾂ･L = 3.8 x 1023

A self-similar Radon atom existing at the subquantum scale will have a self-similar subquantum scale 1s2 orbital circumference measured relative to the human scale:

6.28 x 10-12 m/3.8 x 1023 = 1.7 x 10-35 m

Vibrating string particles correspond to subquantum scale atoms.

Strings are subquantum scale atomic oscillators.

Liquid spacetime? Am I seeing double? Came across this -

Liquid spacetime: A very slippery superfluid, that's what spacetime could be like

"Likewise, according to some models, general relativity says nothing about the "atoms" that make up spacetime but describes the dynamics of spacetime as if it were a "classical" object. Spacetime would therefore be a phenomenon "emerging" from more fundamental constituents, just as water is what we perceive of the mass of H2O molecules that form it... Stefano Liberati, professor at the International School for Advanced Studies (SISSA) in Trieste, and Luca Maccione, a research scientist at the Ludwig-Maximilian University in Munich, have devised innovative ways of using the tolls of elementary particle physics and high energy astrophysics to describe the effects that should be observed if spacetime were a fluid. Liberati and Maccione also proposed the first observational tests of these phenomena. Their paper has just been published in the journal Physical Review Letters"

Hmmm.... the stone the builders refused coming back to be the head cornerstone?

If spacetime is made of "atoms", then a collection of them would be a spacetime 'line', a collection of spacetime lines would be a spacetime 'surface', and a collection of spacetime surfaces would be a spacetime 'body'. So the geometric point is not a fiction afterall?

Akinbo

.

.

.

.

.

There is no unification of physics, unless every property of observable physics has the potential of simultaneously and inclusively being modeled in a common system to include: instantaneous qualities of quantum entanglement, decoherence, duality, fringe patterns, gravity, electro-magnetism, forces, red shift, subatomic particles, dark energy, alternate dimensional spaces, ... everything.

Here is my stab at an all inclusive model using an alternate method that potentially allows for the separation of time and space; i.e. warping space/time relationships.

Axiom of Choice potentially defines the causal limits of which mathematics can be defined.

Using an extension of Axiom of Choice, proposed is a method to model relativity to define the causal limits of physics; non-relativistic quantum causality.

"Axiom of Choice extended to include Relativity"

http://vixra.org/pdf/1402.0041v1.pdf

Sub-atomic particles are formed from causal interactions of adjacency to causal singularities (physics constants) that produce localization of causal influence as discrete aliasing of quantum event interrelated systems. As an inadequate visualization, similar to crystal growth forming in a causal media moderated as a consequence of distributed impurities (singularities).

Proposed is that a quantum entanglement is the result of two similar vast systems of causality that differ by one or a few causal states.

Present quantum computers are relativistic, and therefore operate as similar vast systems of synchronized quantum causality, and NOT the more fundamental form of non-relativistic quantum causality. This fundamentally models an explanation for decoherence.

I've kept my compendium of relationships considered. But realized that if we do learn to manipulate space/time relationships, who is going to have control over those tools? Who will be excluded from having access to these tools? Who will decide what the tools will be used for? Who will decide who lives and dies in the Universe?

Presently, the majority of Americans have significant issues with Common Sense, let alone correlating vast systems to predict consequences for a thousand years. Professors until now have not been able to define nor teach common sense.

Common Sense = Self-esteem(group related skills) Logic Predicting Consequences

Activists until now have not been able to usefully define Corruption.

Corruption = unethical/illegal allocation of resources and/or opportunities

So with these relationships we can now work to eliminate all corruption to support the broad utilization of space/time manipulation.

Bottom/Up method to weaken corruption through the broad Teaching of Common Sense

http://www.UA-KiTS.com

and to build the economic structures to support broad physics research and related experimentation.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1205.0021v1.pdf

We do NOT have a system to monitor for and eliminate ALL corruption.

Top/Down method to detect and eliminate all corruption; simultaneously Maximizing Freedoms AND Maximizing Security, not have one at the expense of the other

http://eliminate-all-corruption.pbworks.com

Everyone should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon (manipulate space/time) if they maintain the proper safety protocols. But with a tool to rip open the fabric of space, we need organized vigilance against human error and lack of broadly considered judgement.

Hoping that the technologies developed will be used peaceably is irrational.

http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/MTO/Programs/Quantum_Entanglement_Science_and_Technology_(QUEST).aspx

The military is making billions of dollars available for research leading to products utilizing quantum entanglement which is a form of space/time manipulation; i.e. instantaneous.

In a causal system, speed is a moderated product of space/time. Anything not related to space, or not related to time, or neither related to space nor time, is instantaneous. Or more accurately, non-relativistic, not of observable physics.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Akinbo,

Liberati's conception is sub atomic, but same effect. He also produced the nominated 'paper of the year' last year which agreed with the DFM's logical interpretation of SR. http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.5795

It's 'dark energy', which jokingly christened as 'ground comprathene' a few years ago as all we lacked was a name. But the properties are subtly different from the old lumniferous ether. It can't 'modulate' light speed to local c, so 'condenses' particles (initially just paired vortices) to do so.

If each then re-emits at c in it's own local 'centre of mass rest frame' all the properties of physics (as below plus the rest) logically emerge. The last 'block' was QM, now unlocked by the same mechanism in my essay by Bob and Alice.

Do you like romances?

Peter

Dear all,

Physics is about our relationship to the universe; physicality. Everything we "know" holds only as long as we are in the picture as observer. The question here is; what is the universe in itself without us watching?

As stated many times above, physics cannot answer this question. This is the domain of metaphysics; the art of removing the observer from the equation.

Find the substance; that which exists by itself and is not created by our perception. (Everything we perceive is PERCEPTION or an experience. The opposite of experience is SUBSTANCE.

There need to be only one substance in the universe. Space is an integration we keep around in order to be able to do physics, but time is what makes everything. There is only time left.

The descriptive system we need is based on only one substance, dynamic, so that many variations may emerge from it. (Only one substance may operate logically on itself and its variations; no apples and oranges!)

Look at the equations; the rate of passage of time (1/T) makes pretty much everything, right in front of us. It is the basis, substratum, foundation of everything.

What is time? Time is the spontaneous attempt at the resolution of an illogical situation; existence of something. A contradiction to the rule of non-contradiction delayed by its only possible way-out existent; TIME.(see my FQXI essays)

Marcel,

Zeeya,

Logic is the set of rules that guides mathematics and science in its various theories.Logic is scale independant, valid at quantum and at cosmological scales.

The universe finds its evolution in the resolution of logical contradictions, starting with that of existence. Finding what the universe is made of and what makes it evolve by itself are the real questions. After that, we still can do physics. We will just know exactly what we are doing and what part we play in the picture and which part the the universe plays.

Marcel,

Marcel,

You say, "Find the substance; that which exists by itself and is not created by our perception", "There need to be only one substance in the universe"

Group 1: Space is a relational thing and not a substance. Plato, Leibniz, Mach belong here (although Plato says the unit of space, 'the point' is physically real and not a mathematical fiction. See my 2013 essay here).

Group 2: Space is a substance (substantivalism). Aristotle, Proclus, Newton belong here.

Group 3: On the fence. Einstein belongs here. Space is relational but it can vibrate allowing gravitational waves to propagate. Space can by itself differentiate rotational from linear motion without any reference to the fixed stars contrary to Mach's principle.

Which group do you belong and why? What irrefutable evidence do you have against Group 2?

Akinbo

Roger,

I agree that they are not there yet. I checked your website. (Mine is very old, not up-to-date; physics of time speed)

Your grouping needs to be defined by a rule of impossibility in order to make it a truth system. From one impossibility all the possibilities will emerge. I mean, if everything and anything goes, well, we end up with no laws of physics no rules of logic etc. The impossibility to go faster than light is the impossibility from which Special relativity is born; all conclusions emerge from this fact or postulate. The impossibility to distinguish between gravity and inertia is the impossibility where general relativity begins. As you can see, they are both successful truth system but they emerge from different starting-defining impossibilities, usually very difficult to reconcile. (e.g. gravity vs QM)

In my model, the rule of non-contradiction (impossibility) defines the only possible exitent in it. Nothing else but the passage of time may exist in it without leading to a contradiction, i.e. existence and non existence cannot be at the same time... unless they are never found at the same time! The passage of time is an explosive process that meets the requirement. A contradiction that is never tested because never found at the same time. This passage of time is the substance. Well, you could call it anything since it makes everything, but, being a SUBSTANCE, we have no direct experience of it. Except within our own perception of time passed, due to consciousness and memory. These two attributes allow us to sense the substance and its effect on everything; motion, past present etc.

We have the rule of impossibility and the substance. We still need one rule of operation that must be built into a property of the substance itself. Here it is. Existence is more probable where time runs slower. (gravity) This is the only causal rule necessary for the whole system, including its expansion. (nothingness = no time = "slowest time" possible = spontaneous motion in all directions aka explosive).

In this model, we are not present as observers and the way we see and conceive up things to be is not interfering. This universe works by itself as it should.

Causality is all. Crunching the numbers is on a want to know basis.

If the universe is so simple, it should be explained in simple terms anyone on the street can grasp...

Marcel,

Akinbo,

Group 1 and 2 are metaphysics and may discuss the nature of space.

Group 3 is physics and it cannot say "what is" but only "what appears" because based on experience.

Group 2 contains many approaches but from different angles.

I have to say group 4. If I were in any known group, I would not be stating anything new. Philosophy is about either discussing old ideas or coming up with new ones. Too many people of the first group, not enough of the second.

Marcel,

Akinbo,

Let me put it this way. The groups 1 and 2 that try to answer the question "what is space' are wrong in the question itself. "Space" is a construct of our mind and already carries dimensions. Call it the vacuum.

Since the question addressed by group 1 and 2 are not valid metaphysical questions, I have to create my own group that addresses the question; " what substance makes the vacuum". This way I have shaved off one layer of the problem by removing our own construct.

Marcel,

Marcel,

Hi. Thanks for the feedback!

In your thinking, why is the passage of time present instead of not present. Also, where does the operations rule "Existence is more probable where time runs slower. (gravity)" come from. I'm thinking that any theory needs to explain why its necessary things (e.g. passage of time, etc.) exist.

Roger,

We say that time slows down in a gravitational field, slower closer to Earth and faster away from it. It is there even if we don't have a clock there, i.e. it is there without measuring it. The local passage of time drives the clock. In other words, the local passage of time determines the rate of evolution of spontaneous processes, here, the clock. This is why we trust spontaneous processes to measure the local rate of passage of time. Spontaneous falling of sand in the hourglass or the spontaneous transition of a ceasium atom ...etc.

Actually, Bill Unruh says it is not gravity that slows time. No. Gravity IS the unequal passage of time from place to place. It is then easy to see that the spontaneous movement in a gravitational field is caused by this unequal rate of passage of time, moving from faster rate toward a slower rate. Simply put, anything that exists does so more where it is/spends more time, i.e. where time runs slower.. Because the fact of existence is the only property of concern here, every object, matter waves.. etc gets attracted in the same way.

Because everything is made of any number of variation in the rate of passage of time matter does replace locally the passage of time because of the rule of non-contradiction; the rate of passage of time cannot in one place and one time be both just passing time and its variation. From this, matter (or any existent) replaces locally the evolution of the passage of time and reduces it causing gravity. So, anything that exists, replacing the passage of time (substance), has a gravity field. Giving universal gravitation; everything that exists attracts each other.

Marcel,

Marcel,

Roger,

addendum

The rate of passage of time is 1/t. Everywhere, in all our equations. If time slows down, it get smaller, meaning the denominator gets bigger. The time of existence or residence t is bigger/longer. So, existents tends to exist more there because they ARE there longer.

Marcel,

Marcel, not so easy to dismiss...

"Let me put it this way. The groups 1 and 2 that try to answer the question 'what is space' are wrong in the question itself"

What specifically is wrong with the question?

"Space is a construct of our mind and already carries dimensions"

Are you saying that without minds space cannot exist? If there were no living things or if there were only bacteria in the universe, assuming bacteria don't have minds, will there be space? If not, was there no space in pre-historic times? What do you mean by carrying dimension or do you mean having the attribute of dimension? If so, can something that has attributes which physical objects obey (like Newton's first law of motion) be said not to exist? Can physical objects obey what does not exist? Or do you mean, space is just a principle?

"What substance makes the vacuum"

What is the meaning of substance? Does substance occupy space? Which comes first then, substance or space? Can there be substance without space or the opposite space without substance? Is something (vacuum) made from a substance, not a substance also? Is there a smallest substance?

"Metaphysics..."

My dictionary says: branch of philosophy concerned with being and knowing. Is physics not also about being and knowing?

Akinbo

Akinbo,

"Let me put it this way. The groups 1 and 2 that try to answer the question 'what is space' are wrong in the question itself"

What specifically is wrong with the question?

Marcel: Philosophy keeps pretty much the same questions through the ages. But the answers are time sensitive. In the age of QM and GR the answer and even the questions must be adapted.

"Space is a construct of our mind and already carries dimensions"

Marcel: The universe is a cold dark place with matter and radiations. Our eyes and mind make from it the color, conceive the space and shapes etc. My questions pertain to matters behind this perception.

Are you saying that without minds space cannot exist?

Marcel: Yes. We already know that. This is why we call it space-time. It is all time, but we kept the "space" part in order to keep the experience of physics going. You look at a meter stick. That is space for you. But the universe has no eyse and mind to integrate, like you do, all the points of the meter in one moment of perception. No. The universe has no point of view like you do. The universe is not contemplative, it is operational. For one point to affect another point requires some time even at the speed of light. Because it requires time they cannot be at the same moment. On the other hand, Space is a concept of things being at the same moment, like objects ...

"What substance makes the vacuum"

Marcel: Substance it that which exist by itself, we don't make it, and it makes everything but that we cannot perceived other than through a relationship called "experience". Experience is our own adapted, transformed interpretation of the substance. All of our reality is nothing without us making it by our experience. Physics is the study of this experience.

"Metaphysics..."

My dictionary says: branch of philosophy concerned with being and knowing. Is physics not also about being and knowing?

Marcel: Yes, but within the confines of our experience. Sure, as Dean Rickles explained, a kind of metaphysics is creeping into physics with advanced mathematics and other theories. But excess baggage is carried along and we don't let go easily and enough of the way we perceive and think required to address the foundation of it all.

Answers to most other questions are in the posts to Roger.

Thanks,

Marcel,